Contract – Forum Selection Clauses – Civil Practice – Venue

Listen to this article

Quarterman v. Radius Engineering International Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-202-15, 5 pp.) (Mary Lewis, J.) 8:15-cv-01598; D.S.C.

Holding: Since the forum-selection clauses in the parties’ contracts do not contain specific language making Texas the exclusive venue for disputes, the “Texas clauses” are optional rather than mandatory.

The court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer venue.

Under Texas law, for a forum-selection clause to be considered mandatory or exclusive, the clause must go beyond establishing that a particular forum will have jurisdiction and must clearly demonstrate the parties’ intent to make that jurisdiction exclusive. Absent explicit language regarding exclusivity, a forum-selection provision is properly regarded as permissive in nature.

Here, the Texas clauses do not name Texas or Kaufman County, Texas, as “the” exclusive forum. Instead, they merely establish Texas as “a” potential forum where litigation may be commenced.

Next, considering defendants’ alternative motion to transfer venue, the court cannot find that defendants have met their heavy burden of establishing the inconvenience of the current forum, a burden that is particularly heavy where, as here, plaintiff has chosen his home forum.

Motion denied.